year; only 4 percent selected the TCJA
as the factor having the most impact
(among 11 options). However, these treasury professionals may want to reconsider. “Based on our discussions with
clients,” Berkowitz says, “we think that
the majority of cash repatriation is yet to
come.”

Fewer, but Deeper,Partnerships

Another cash management priorityfor corporate treasury teams is continu-ing to improve banking relationshipswhile deriving more value from them.“Global and regional corporates havea set of key criteria for selecting theirpartner for cash management servicesand developing their relationship,” as-serts Capgemini Payments and WorldPayments Report Leader ChristopheVergne. “They first need trust. They ex-pect from their partner a strong commit-ment to the cash management serviceline and to the relationship with theircompany.”These expectations are intensifyingas macroeconomic conditions continueto swirl, regulators demand more—andmuch more detailed—information, andinternal processes become more complex.Survey respondents indicate that theywant their banking partners to introducemore simplicity and transparency to theirrelationships.

One step toward greater simplicity involves consolidation. While most
survey respondents (62 percent) plan
to hold steady their current number of
banking partners, 17 percent expect
to consolidate to a smaller number of
banks for their domestic cash management and 13 percent plan to consolidate
their international cash management
banks. (See Figure 3.) Some respondents
do plan to increase the number of banks
they use for domestic cash management
(13 percent), but none of the survey respondents expects their function to increase its number of international banking partners.

The nature of corporate banking
relationships is also changing, according
to those on both sides of the partnership.
Treasury leaders who responded to the
survey identified “getting technology to
work properly” as their top focus in their
cash management banking relationships, cited by nearly half of respondents
(47 percent). This is not surprising, given
the significant changes most treasury
functions have made to internal treasury
systems as well as many banks’ embrace
of digital transformation and advanced
technology designed to improve user experience.

“It’s our goal to simplify treasuryprocesses for our clients,” Berkowitzsays. “That means ensuring that ourtechnology works well with their propri-etary and third-party technology. Ourgoal is to make their experience withour systems as consistent and conve-nient as possible.”Part of that convenience, survey re-spondents also indicated, includes link-ing treasury processes and supportingtechnology to broader finance initia-tives, such as those involving accountspayable and accounts receivable.

The price companies pay for cash
management services largely held
steady or increased modestly during the
past year: Sixty-five percent of respondents reported no significant change in
price, 18 percent said costs increased
by less than 10 percent, and 12 percent
reported a price increase of greater than
10 percent.

So long as those price increases reflect offerings that equip treasury
leaders with the transparency necessary to see the available opportunities
around them, treasury functions appear likely to accept them. After all, as
more regulatory and macroeconomic
disruptions unfold, all treasury functions will need to avoid the pessimist’s
tendency to see only the difficulty in
every opportunity.

Eric Krell also writes for Consulting
magazine. He is based in Austin, Texas.

Figure 3: Bank Consolidation on the Agenda for Some Treasuries
Consolidate domestic cash management to smaller number
of banks
Consolidate international cash management to smaller
number of banks
Increase number of banks used for cash management
domestically
Increase number of banks used for cash management
globally
No change in number of banks

17%13%13%0%62%

Over the next year, how do you expect the number of banks you use for
cash management to change? (select all that apply)